Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Hi Dan,

I think we can consider that an editorial update. (Different words, same intent).

My only concern is that it’s getting long, but I can’t see a way to usefully shorten it.

For everyone who has +1ed, please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed update:

“This Success Criterion should be considered as automatically met for any content using HTML. Since this criterion was written, the HTML Standard has adopted specific requirements governing how user agents must handle incomplete tags, incorrect element nesting, duplicate attributes, and non-unique IDs. Although the HTML Standard treats some of these cases as non-conforming for authors, it is considered to "allow these features" for the purposes of this Success Criterion because the specification requires that user agents support handling these cases consistently. In practice, this criterion no longer provides any benefit to people with disabilities in itself; issues such as missing roles due to inappropriately nested elements or incorrect states or names due to a duplicate ID are covered by different Success Criteria.”

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Dan Bjorge <Dan.Bjorge@microsoft.com>
Date: Friday, 24 March 2023 at 01:05
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
-1

I support the idea of adding a note, but not the specific proposed text, particularly the sentence “This criterion can therefore be ignored as being redundant.” The normative conformance model doesn’t make any affordance for authors being allowed to ignore criteria just because they are redundant, and we shouldn’t be adding non-normative notes that sound like they’re overriding the normative conformance model.

Instead of the note saying “you can ignore the criteria because it’s redundant”, I would be much more comfortable having it say “you can ignore the criteria because we consider the exception already written into the normative text of the SC to apply to all HTML content.” I think this is an important distinction, particularly for the purposes of minimizing drive-by non-conformance claims.

I’ve included a more complete suggestion along these lines as a comment in PR #3116<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3116%23discussion_r1147007984&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cbb0fe4fe41b249cb715908db2c03c953%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638152166997983151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OQP95Qh5WiS8XPNW0lcKaLTbZTo3fWfX47A5%2BVakD3U%3D&reserved=0>.

-Dan

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:35 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
Importance: High

Hi everyone,

Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday 28th March at 1PM Boston time.

Following from a previous CFC which did not pass:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0201.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0201.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cbb0fe4fe41b249cb715908db2c03c953%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638152166998139812%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NKn3EPwP%2Fk5D3tUhGXdYKk6pi9Dr96%2Bry0a%2BsjZUCGo%3D&reserved=0>

We discussed an alternative:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0282.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0282.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cbb0fe4fe41b249cb715908db2c03c953%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638152166998154012%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HS1hzNTw2KK9mBiqo9%2BokiCO1dGuv4lZDLyx68X6dhw%3D&reserved=0>

That alternative appears to have support (including from those objecting to the previous CFC).

The change has been implemented here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3116<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3116&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cbb0fe4fe41b249cb715908db2c03c953%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638152166998154012%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BHOOkYs%2F6rVMxDBAziSxu4ot57M3vYkhQqfUK36HDwo%3D&reserved=0>

It adds the proposed note to the SC text, and updates the understanding document. The understanding document states that it has been removed from 2.2 but remains in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 with a note (and replicates the note there).

If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cbb0fe4fe41b249cb715908db2c03c953%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638152166998163965%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2ByhgZocYLKiqIRsEt3gGeWj6MKUPpjjEQVIVsNaCBBk%3D&reserved=0>